The University of Maine
DigitalCommons@UMaine
Honors College
5-2014
Media Portrayal and Public Opinion on the
Supreme Court
Patrick Hall
University of Maine - Main
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors
Part of the American Politics Commons
Recommended Citation
Hall, Patrick, "Media Portrayal and Public Opinion on the Supreme Court" (2014). Honors College. Paper 180.
http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/180
This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College by
an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine.
MEDIA PORTRAYAL AND PUBLIC OPINION OF THE SUPEME COURT
by
Patrick Hall
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for a Degree with Honors
(Political Science)
The Honors College
University of Maine
May 2014
Advisory Committee:
Amy Fried, Professor of Political Science
Richard Powell, PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science
Steven E. Barkan, Professor of Sociology
Sol Goldman, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Political Science
Melissa Ladenheim, Adjunct Assistant Professors (Honors)
ABSTRACT
Because the power of the Supreme Court rests on its acceptance as a legitimate
institution by the people of the United States, understanding why people accept the Court
is critical for maintaining the institution. This study explored the relationship between
how media covers Supreme Court rulings and how public opinion of the Court changes
afterward. A selection of cases, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v.
Texas, Hollingsworth v. Perry, and U.S. v. Windsor, articles from the New York Times,
were analyzed to gauge whether the case and the Court were portrayed in either a
political manner or in a manner that focused on the procedural aspects of the case and
ruling. The analysis looked at the references to legal, procedural items like the
Constitution, precedent, or other legal jargon or to the references of institutional conflict,
interest groups, elections, political parties or figures, activists, or social and moral values.
This analysis shows a trend toward more politicization of coverage of Court rulings, and,
when compared to public opinion polls, show a correlation with lower public approval of
the Court.
CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Case Selection and Analysis Methods ................................................................................ 5
Griswold v. Connecticut ................................................................................................... 11
Articles .......................................................................................................................... 11
Public Opinion .............................................................................................................. 16
Roe v. Wade ...................................................................................................................... 18
Articles .......................................................................................................................... 18
Public Opinion .............................................................................................................. 22
Lawrence v. Texas ............................................................................................................ 24
Articles .......................................................................................................................... 24
Public Opinion .............................................................................................................. 28
Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor .................................................................... 31
Articles .......................................................................................................................... 31
Public Opinion .............................................................................................................. 39
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 42
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 42
Possible Explanations.................................................................................................... 44
Scope and Limitations of Study .................................................................................... 46
Significance for the Court ............................................................................................. 48
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 57
Author’s Bio...................................................................................................................... 59
iii
INTRODUCTION
In a time of polarized politics and very negative views of the federal government,1
what has happened to public opinion on the Supreme Court, the branch of government
that typically has the greatest level of public support?2 This thesis tracks changes in
public opinion responses in the wake of several cases and analyses the media coverage of
those cases.
Recently, the Supreme Court made two controversial decisions regarding gay
marriage in their overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and their declining to rule on a
case over California’s Proposition 8; both decisions were in favor of same-sex marriage.
The Court’s decision on U.S. v. Windsor, the case over the constitutionality of the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), an act that limits federal recognition of marriage
solely to heterosexual marriages, overturned the law, allowing same-sex marriage to be
federally recognized. The decision on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case regarding
Proposition 8, effectively allowed gay marriage to resume in California. Both of these
cases were major accomplishments for the gay-rights movement and received significant
amounts of media coverage. As Justice Scalia said, “some will rejoice in today’s opinion,
and some will despair at it, that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so
many.”3
In light of these cases, and of other, significant cases, this thesis will attempt to
answer whether the way national media portrays the Court corresponds with national
1
"Public Trust in Government: 1958-2013." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press RSS. Pew
Research Center, 18 Oct. 2013. Web.
2
Jones, Jeffrey M. "Americans' Trust in Government Generally Down This Year. “Gallup Politics. Gallup,
Inc., 26 Sept. 2013. Web.
3
Schwartz, John. "Guide to the Supreme Court Decision on the Defense of Marriage Act." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 25 June 2013. Web.
1
public approval of the court. The analysis does not presume that media coverage had a
direct impact on public opinion or was the sole influence on opinion.
Understanding how and why the public supports the Court is important for
strengthening the Court in the future. Durr, Martin, and Wolbrecht wrote about the
importance of understanding the foundations for support of the court in their article titled
Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court:
Unlike support for other institutions, interest in Supreme Court support is driven
not by a hypothesized electoral linkage, but by the expectation that the Court
necessarily depends on public support as a source of institutional legitimacy and
political capital. The level of support the Court enjoys has long been viewed as a
crucial resource, both by helping engender a positive response to the Court’s
decisions and by encouraging the successful execution of its proclamations,
necessarily carried out by other actors and institutions.4
Losing such public support would undermine the Court’s ability to have its decisions
followed. Understanding the effects of media on these cases helps to further the
knowledge that would help enable the implementation of the Court’s decisions
The public’s support for the Supreme Court as an institution has sparked much
research into the reasons behind the public’s approval. Several political scientists have
conducted surveys and studies to determine why people generally support the Supreme
Court, which contrasts with lower public approval of other branches of the government.
They argue that the court’s legitimacy has been shown to be a factor in public approval.
People generally feel that, despite the degree of separation between public opinion and
the court’s decisions, it is a very legitimate branch of the government. Additionally,
special attention has been paid to the way that the media portray the Supreme Court and
its decisions. These scholars argue that the media usually portray the Supreme Court in
4
Durr, Robert H., Andrew D. Martin, and Christina Wolbrecht. "Ideological Divergence and Public
Support for the Supreme Court." American Journal of Political Science 44.4 (2000): 775. Print.
2
an apolitical manner, typically focusing on the procedure and arguments behind the
court’s decisions. The public not only believes it to be fairer and more trustworthy but to
have none of the downsides of the partisanship at work in the legislative and executive
branches. Even actions by the court that would lower some people’s approval of it seem
to be tempered by the perceived focus on procedure. Because the Supreme Court is
largely portrayed as apolitical and procedural, people generally approve.
In some of this research, the amount of information people glean from the media
affects their public opinion of the Supreme Court. According to a study done by John H.
Kessel, those with more favorable support of the Court usually saw more favorable
messages regarding it. Kessel’s study was done in 1966, but later studies showed similar
results. In a much more recent study, Mark D. Ramirez showed that how the public
gained information on the Court affects their support of it. In this 2008 study, survey
respondents presented with news articles showing the Court as an institution that follows
procedure and precedent gave the Court more approval than those respondents who were
presented with news articles showing partisan behavior as being responsible for the
outcome of a case. Moreover, no matter how the Court was portrayed, approval was not
related to whether the respondents agreed with the outcome of the case. Support for the
Court was also high for those respondents presented with a partisan portrayal that agreed
with the partisan reasons behind the court decision. Other studies have looked at whether
the actual decisions affect public opinion and have shown some correlation: Caldeira and
Gibson argued that the people mainly support Court decisions that protect civil liberties
and democratic norms.5 Ramirez, however, found no such causality.6
5
Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson. "The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court."
American Journal of Political Science 36.3 (1992). Print.
3
As this thesis will show, reporting on the Supreme Court shifted during the last
fifty years, at least as it concerns prominent cases on social issues. Reporting that was
fairly procedural and legal in nature eventually started incorporating more and more
political subjects, reflecting the growing political activism surrounding such issues. All
of the cases had articles explaining the history of the case, some of the biographical
information of the participants in the case, the legal reasoning behind the case, and the
possible outcomes and effects, but the earlier cases’ articles lacked much of the items that
could characterize them as political. They had fewer, if any at all, mentions of interest
groups, activists, politicians, morals and social values, or the legislative process.
Although all cases had media that covered how the rulings would affect or were affecting
the law, the politics and social values that the legislation would be based on were not as
present. While this thesis makes no causal claims, this shift in reporting corresponds with
the long term trend of declining public support for the Court.
6
Ramirez, Mark D. "Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court." Political
Psychology 29.5 (2008): 675-98. Print.
4
CASE SELECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS
In addition to the same-sex marriage cases mentioned earlier, several other
landmark cases concerned with individual privacy, discrimination, and sex, over the last
50 years, were chosen to analyze media coverage of Court decisions and shifts in public
opinion. The cases chosen deal with similar issues and are fairly well spaced throughout
the last 50 years. By using similar issues, this thesis attempts to negate some of the
factors that could influence how closely media portrayal corresponds to public opinion.
Using cases with a wider variety of issues would just introduce other variables. By
choosing cases so spread out in time, this thesis attempts to gain a clearer picture of the
long term shifts in media, public opinion, and their relationship.
The earliest of these cases, from 1965, is Griswold v. Connecticut. This case
centered on a Connecticut law that barred the use of any form of contraceptive. Although
people had been trying for several years before Griswold to challenge and overturn the
law, no successful case had been made until Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of
the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a physician
began a birth control clinic, something they did to intentionally test the law. After they
were arrested and fined for their practice, specifically for giving advice on contraception
and prescribing a contraceptive, they appealed their conviction to Connecticut’s Supreme
Court of Errors, lost, and appealed then to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court decided
on two issues. First, the Court ruled that Buxton and Griswold had standing to assert the
rights of married people; even though they themselves were not using the contraceptives,
they were accessories to the crime, and “certainly the accessory should have standing to
5
assert that the offense which he is charged with assisting is not, or cannot constitutionally
be, a crime”7. Second, the Court ruled that the Connecticut law that prohibited the use of
contraceptives was unconstitutional; it violated the penumbral right to privacy within
one’s home and marriage found in several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The next case this thesis examines is Roe v. Wade. Argued in 1971 and 1972 and
decided in 1973, Roe covered the right of women to choose to abort their pregnancies and
specifically targeted a Texas Law that prohibited all abortions not medically necessary to
save a mother’s life. The case started in 1970 with three plaintiffs: Marsha and David
King, a married couple interested in the possible use of abortion in their future (although
King was not pregnant, she was worried about possible contraceptive failure) and Norma
McCorvey, who was unmarried, pregnant, and wanting an abortion. For the case, all of
the plaintiffs’ names were changed. The Kings became the Does and McCorvey became
the known Jane Roe. They sued the Dallas district attorney, Henry Wade. Although Roe
won in the federal district court they had brought the suit in, the Does were dismissed as
plaintiffs due to lack of standing, and the court refused to issue an injunction against the
Texas law. Doe appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Court heard the
arguments late in 1971, very soon after two Justices, Black and Harlan, retired and left
the court. The case was reheard late 1972 to accommodate the addition of Justices
Powell and Rehnquist. During the case, James Hallford, a physician being prosecuted
under the Texas law, intervened in the suit, but he was eventually ruled to not have
standing. In 1973 the Court ruled that the Texas law that Roe was seeking an injunction
against was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause. The majority opinion stated that the State’s interest in protecting
7
“Griswold v. Connecticut | LII / Legal Information Institute.” Web.
6
the mother’s health and the “potentiality of human life” do not outweigh the mother’s
right to privacy and the “qualified right to terminate her pregnancy”8.
The third case studied in this thesis is Lawrence v. Texas, in which two Texas
men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were convicted of sodomy, their actions being
against a Texas law prohibiting consensual, intimate sexual contact between same-sex
couples. Although they were initially convicted and fined and lost their appeal to the
Texas Court of Appeals, they appealed to the Supreme Court. The majority ruled that the
Due Process Clause protected their personal, private right to engage in such sexual
contact. Justice Kennedy wrote that, “the Texas statute furthers no legitimate state
interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the
individual”9.
These cases will be studied alongside the two recent cases over same-sex
marriage. Those two cases will be treated as a single case for the purposes of media
analysis because they were so close together in time (they were argued a day apart and
their decisions were announced the same day) and because they were so similar in their
subject. Many articles covered both cases at the same time.
The first of these cases is Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which couples Kristin Perry
and Sandra Stier and Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo were denied marriage licenses
under a recent California state constitutional amendment know as Proposition 8.
Although the State of California chose not to defend the suit (both the attorney general
and the governor chose to not help in the defense), State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth,
leader of ProtectMarriage.com, the group that sponsored the initial proposition, was
8
"Roe v. Wade." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web.
LAWRENCE AND GARNER v. TEXAS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. and
Lawrence v. Texas. U.S. Supreme Court. 26 June 2003. Print.
9
7
allowed to intervene as defendant. The federal district court found that the proposition
was unconstitutional, so Hollingsworth and ProtectMarriage.com appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the group did not have standing to appeal
the decision, effectively allowing California to follow the district court decision.10
The second of the same-sex marriage cases, U.S. v. Windsor, dealt with the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, were married in
Canada and had their marriage recognized by their state, New York. When Spyer passed
away, the Internal Revenue Service denied a spousal estate tax exception to Windsor
because, after DOMA, the federal government would not recognize same-sex marriages.
Because the current presidential administration refused to defend the law, an interest
group called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), intervened in the case to
defend it. Although Windsor won in both the district court and in the court of appeals,
BLAG continued to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that DOMA’s
provision that defined marriage as existing only with a man and a woman was
unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.11
In analyzing the articles surrounding these cases, a search through the New York
Times’ database was made. The Times was chosen for several reasons. It is one of the
major national news sources. It is widely considered the “newspaper of record.”12 It still,
despite declining print media readership, maintains a daily circulation of close to two
10
Santoro, Thomas, and Stephen Wirth. "Hollingsworth v. Perry." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell
University Law School. Web.
11
Dudley, Michaela C., and Allison Nolan. "United States v. Windsor." LII / Legal Information Institute.
Cornell University Law School. Web.
12
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "The New York Times (American Newspaper)." Encyclopedia
Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web.
8
million,13 and it has long held one of the top spots in American newspapers.14 Lee
Epstein even suggests using the Times as a measure of issue salience.15 The Times
should provide a representative sample mainstream media coverage. Additionally, it has
an easy-to-access archive database that makes finding and using their old articles
feasible. The time frames for the searches were a year before the arguments were made
and a year after the case was decided, a period chosen because media outside of these
ranges would not be able to show much of a relationship with the public opinion
responses to the actual arguments or rulings.
The analysis focused on categorizing the articles as either political or procedural.
Political articles portrayed the Court in a political manner with emphasis on morals and
social values, politicians, political activists, interest groups, laws and legislation, and
institutional conflict. Those being classified as procedural focused on the legal reasoning
behind the case. They contained the following: circumstances and history of the cases,
constitutional law, logic, court procedure, legal experts (Law professors or attorneys if
they are not part of interest groups or other political entities), and arguments and
decisions. See Appendix A for a list of the articles in chronological order. The analyses
are labeled to the corresponding citation.
The public opinion polls used later in the analysis of the changes in public opinion
of the court were acquired from several sources. The Roper Center for Public Opinion
Research’s iPoll database was used extensively. Additionally, poll results came from
13
Lee, Edmund. "New York Times Tops USA Today to Become No. 2 U.S. Paper." Bloomberg.com.
Bloomberg, 30 Apr. 2013. Web.
14
"Erdos & Morgan: Press Releases- Erdos & Morgan Releases 2011 Opinion Leaders Study." Erdos &
Morgan. Erdos & Morgan, Inc., 4 Nov. 2011. Web. and
"Erdos & Morgan: Press Releases- Erdos & Morgan Releases 2013 Opinion Leaders Study." Erdos &
Morgan. Erdos & Morgan, Inc., 5 Dec. 2013. Web.
15
"Measuring Issue Salience." American Journal of Political Science 44.1 (2000): 66-83. JSTOR.
ITHAKA, 13 May 2004. Web.
9
searches through Harris Interactive’s archive, Pew’s archive, and Gallup’s archive. The
earlier cases had relatively little public opinion research done on them. Public opinion
research was still a growing field, and less attention was paid to the specific thoughts of
the public on each Supreme Court case. For all of the polls used, the methodology and
question wording was examined to the extent possible, and some poll results have been
deliberately not included due to unacceptable wording or question order biases.
10
GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
Coverage of Griswold v. Connecticut was composed of ten articles, of which three
were political, one was relatively neutral, and six were procedural in their portrayals of
the case.
Articles
1) Although the constitutionality of Connecticut’s ban on contraceptives had been
in the news for several years, the specific case, Griswold v. Conn., did not appear in the
New York Times until 1964. Its first mention, and it was not mentioned by name, was on
May 12, in an article on Connecticut’s Supreme Court of Errors decision. The article’s
title “Connecticut Wins on Birth Control” may have seemed to be relatively political in
nature, but the article focused on facts, listing out dates, the history of similar cases, and
the circumstances of this case. After laying out the background of the case, the article
quoted extensively from the State Supreme Court’s opinion; more than half of the article
was a quote from the majority opinion. The last paragraph of the quote, and of the
article, was a quote from the majority opinion explaining that politics do not supersede
case law. The article stuck to the circumstances of the case and the reasoning of the
court. It did not focus at all, or even really mention, any politics behind the case.
2) The next article that appeared in the New York Times that mentioned Griswold
v. Connecticut was a summary of the Court’s actions of the day. On December 8th, 1964,
the Times published a list of the courts actions. On this list, the Court’s decision to
review Griswold v. Conn. was listed with many other of the other of the Court’s decisions
to review or to not review. The article had a scant thirty-one words, a single sentence,
dedicated to the case. The sentence was very cut and dry, listing only exactly what the
11
Court had done and what the case was legally about: “Agreed to review the convictions
of a Connecticut doctor and a Planned Parenthood official for running a birth-control
clinic in violation of that state’s laws against the use of contraceptives.”
3) The decision to review the case was, however, expanded upon in an article later
on in the same issue. This 267 word article fully explained the background to the case.
The article, much like the previous articles, explained each aspect of the case. Starting
with an explanation of the law in dispute, the article moved through explaining the
characters of the case and the legal contentions they made. The article then explained
more of the history behind the issue, citing when Connecticut’s law had been previously
challenged and why those challenges had failed. In doing so, the article cited procedure,
and said nothing about the politics of the time. The only reference the article made to the
political debate that existed was in calling Connecticut’s law “much debated.” The
article very clearly avoided political discussion.
4) After the oral arguments of the case, in late March of 1965, another article was
published. This one, again, focused largely on the legal reasoning of the case. The
article extensively quoted the dialogue between Justice Stewart and the lawyer
representing Connecticut. The article, which focused on the new emergence of marital
status in reference to the use or provision of birth control, highlighted several legal
issues: the police power of the state and its need to “prevent immorality,” the states
power to provide for its own “population ‘continuity,’” and the state’s ability,
legislatively, to “enact laws in this area.” The dialogue quoted by the article continued to
tackle legal questions, such as how closely tailored a law must be to what it attempts to
prevent. The article refrained from bringing up current political tensions. It ended with
12
an overview of the appellants’ history, explaining who they were, what they had done,
how they had managed to appeal it to the Supreme Court, and on what constitutional
grounds they were disputing Connecticut’s laws.
5) When the decision came out, the New York Times released several articles that
significantly covered the case, the first of which was a selection of excerpts from the
majority’s opinion, the concurring opinions, and from the dissent. Just by the nature of
the article being all quotes of the opinions, the Times did not insert any political context
and focused exclusively on what the justices wrote. Even the introduction of the article
simply explained that the decision overturned a Connecticut law banning contraceptives.
The justices only hinted at the political matters behind the case (Stewart’s dissenting
opinion explained, “as a philosophical matter, I believe the use of contraceptives in the
relationship of marriage should be left to personal and private choices […]”16), but, by
necessity, they wrote of the legal merits of the case and the reasoning behind
Connecticut’s law’s constitutionality. Politics were all but absent in the article.
6) In a separate article, the Times chronicled the life of a “Gentle Crusader,” Dr.
C. Lee Buxton, the primary character in Griswold v. Conn. from his position as the
physician that opened a birth control clinic with Planned Parenthood League of
Connecticut’s Executive Director Estelle Griswold. The article told of how Dr. Buxton
had become involved in the case and reviewed his larger life story, where he had been
born, how he had been educated, and how his professional life had developed. The
article is notably more political than the previous ones because it focused on Buxton’s
16
"Excerpts From Opinions of Supreme Court in Barring Curbs on Birth Control." The New York Times 8
June 1965: 34. The New York Times. The New York Times. Web.
13
drive to gain acceptance for birth control, to “help wipe out superstition and ignorance.”
Despite this focus, the article was still relatively matter-of-fact.
7) A third article concerning the Court’s decision was released the same day and
was essentially a paraphrasing of the opinions and dissents. However, this article called
attention to the controversy that the case created. The title, “7-to-2 Ruling Establishes
Marriage Privileges—Stirs Debate,” immediately showed that a controversy over the
decision exists. What the article later showed was that the controversy was between the
justices. The article highlighted the dissent’s belief that the majority was not following
the constitution closely enough, that they had “revived the Court’s earlier policy of
striking down legislation that it considered unreasonable, even when the law did not
violate a specific provision of the Constitution.” The article still quoted extensively from
the opinions. Toward the end of the article, though, the article called attention to the
politics of the court. It showed how the dissenting justices “saw the case as a turning
point toward increased judicial activism.” It recalled the history of judicial activism
during the New Deal. The article quoted Justice Black’s statements on the nature of
privacy and of the balance of the judiciary’s power over other branches of government.
Although political in nature, the article focused on institutional conflict, not on party or
electoral politics.
8) The Times also released their customary summary of actions taken by the
Court. The article devoted a paragraph explaining the legal result of the case and the
alignment of the Justices’ votes. The paragraph on Griswold, just like the rest of the
article, contained many legal terms (“reversed,” “remanded,” “concurring,” etc.).
14
Although it did not cover any of the grounds of the ruling, the article definitely portrayed
the Court in a legal manner.
9) In another article, the Times explored the effect of the decision on the state of
New York. Although the article initially focused on New York legislative proceedings
on birth control, it discussed people’s opinions of the Court’s ruling in Griswold. The
first major section on the ruling was a discussion of the Catholic reaction. The article
quoted Archbishop Henry J. O’Brien’s view that the decision was a “valid interpretation
of constitutional law,” but that it “in no way involve[d] the morality of the question.”
The article quoted from other clergymen who agreed that the ruling was correct, but one,
the Rev. Robert Drinan (also the dean of the Boston College Law school) fostered doubt
about “the scope and thrust of the majority opinion.” The article also quoted from the
defendants of the case, Dr. Buxton and Mrs. Griswold. It was more political in nature
than the previous articles because it hit on the morals and religion behind birth control,
but it also emphasized, at least those the article quoted emphasized, that the Court’s
decision was still made according to solid constitutional law, thus portraying the Court in
both a political and legal manner.
10) Months later, an article emerged that tackled some of the politics surrounding
the case. In “Bishops and the Court,” John Cogley connected the politics of the Catholic
Church to the decision in Griswold v. Conn.. The Catholic Church applauded the decision
of the Court to protect a right to privacy and agreed with the court that the decision was
not based on the morality of contraceptives but on governmental power concerning
marriages. The article showed how the Church was using the decision to argue against
government run birth control programs. The article was political in nature, but portrayed
15
the Court as a procedural, not a moral, institution, and it showed that the Catholic Church
held the court in a favorable light.
Public Opinion
Media coverage of Griswold v. Connecticut was primarily legal and procedural in
nature. Only three of the ten articles showed the case in a political light, and only one of
those articles actually focused on the Court. Determining public opinion toward the Court
was relatively difficult in this time period. . In 1965 relatively few polls were run
covering the Supreme Court,. No polls were run asking about the specifics of the case.
Many of the long-run polls
from Gallup, Harris, and
Pew had not been started
yet. A couple of polls
were conducted before the
case was argued and
decided. In 1963, one of
Trust and Confidence in the Court
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
the earliest Gallup Polls on
governmental satisfaction
that included the Court, found that 10% of people rated the Court as excellent, 33% as
good, 27% as fair, and only 15% as poor.17 The results seem to show mixed results on
favorability of the Court, but the results could be skewed due to answer wording.
“Excellent,” and “good” are clearly favorable ratings of the Court, but “fair,” which is
17
Gallup Poll # 1963-0675: Satisfaction/1964 Presidential Election. Rep. Roper Center for Public Opinion
Research. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC OPINION, 23 July 1963. Web.
16
one of the less favorable answers, still has a positive connotation. This could have
caused some bias. Although this poll does not directly convert to a confidence or
favorability rating, the poll shows that the public was pretty favorable to the Court. In a
survey conducted in 1964 that used a sliding scale for respondents to rate their confidence
in the court, similar results emerged.18 Because the survey was based on a sliding scale
of confidence, a graph has been included to help visualize the results. The survey shows,
again, that confidence in the court was fairly high. After the case, opinion of the court
stayed relatively high. A 1966 Harris Survey asking about how good of a job the Court
had been doing showed that 48% of people thought the Court was doing either an
excellent or pretty good job.19 A poll taken in 1967 showed almost identical results: 15%
rated the Court as excellent, 30% as good, 29% as fair, and only 17% as poor.20 A Harris
Interactive Poll that measured confidence in the Court actually showed an increase in the
percentage of respondents answering with a “great deal” of confidence from 1966 to
1967 from 31% to 40%. 21 The media coverage on the Court was mainly procedural in
nature, and, correspondingly, the public opinion on the Court was fairly high and did not
decrease.
18
Gallup/Potomac Poll # 1964-633POS: National Survey of Attitudes, Hopes, and Fears. Rep. Roper
Center for Public Opinion Research. Potomac Associates, 21 Sept. 1964. Web.
19
Harris Survey, Nov, 1966. Retrieved Apr-15-2014 from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for
Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
20
Gallup Poll # 1967-0747: Vietnam War/Politics. Rep. Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Gallup
Organization, 27 June 1967. Web.
21
Bowman, Karlyn H., and Andrew Rugg. "PUBLIC OPINION ON THE SUPREME COURT." AEI
Public Opinion Studies. AEI. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, June 2012. Web.
17
ROE V. WADE
Roe v. Wade generated a mix of New York Times articles. Of the eight, three portrayed
the Court procedurally, one was a mix, and four portrayed it politically.
Articles
11) Per their usual, the New York Times published an article on the day that the
Supreme Court decided to hear Roe v. Wade merely stating that it had done so. This
article was the Times’ standard “Summary of Actions Taken.” The section on the case
was small (less than thirty words, a single sentence) and focused strictly on the
constitutional merits being argued. This article was in no way political in nature.
12) The next article published on the case, when the case was decided, was
another “Summary of Actions Taken by the Supreme Court” which very plainly stated
what the Court had decided. The article was still relatively short, two sentences, and
focused exclusively on the legal consequences of the Roe v. Wade decision.
13) On the same day, published immediately after the decision was announced, a
selection of excerpts came out. The excerpts, coming from the words of Justice
Blackmun for the majority and Justice White for the dissent, focused on the legal
reasoning behind the decision. Black clearly had to substantiate his opinion to overturn
Texas law, and his arguments were logical and legal in nature. The dissenting opinion,
however, took a slightly more political approach. It discredited the arguments in the
majority opinion, but is also claimed that the Court was acting in an “extravagant”
manner. The article, in totality, was largely legal in nature; because it was exclusively
quotes from the justices, the article showed mainly how the decision came to be through
logical reasoning.
18
14) Also published the day after the ruling was made, an article covered how the
decision would affect politics in the New York state legislature. The article focused on
anti-abortion politicians and quoted from them. Their quotes were very political in nature
and brought out the morals behind abortion. New York politicians were “saddened not
only for those unborn infants who will never taste birth but also for our society that has
soured with permissiveness.” The article also quoted from the New York Civil Liberties
Union and some New York legislators that were pleased with the decision. The article
briefly covered some Connecticut politics after the decision. The article was highly
political in nature; it quoted from political supporters and opponents of abortion and
highlighted the morals of the issue.
15) A day later, an article by Jane Brody outlined the deficiencies of the Court’s
decision. The article was more political than the previous ones. The article started by
claiming the decision as “far-reaching” and claimed it as a major victory for women.
However, the article turned to discussing legal repercussions of the decision, and it cited
“legal authorities here and in Washington.” The article covered how different state laws
conformed to the ruling. In Brody’s part on State Law conformation, she quoted an
attorney for Planned Parenthood-World Population, Mrs. Harriet Pilpel. Although Pilpel
was an attorney and spoke about the legal effects of the decision, the fact that Pilpel was
part of an interest group made the article more political in nature. The article again
brought information from Planned Parenthood when it showed the expectations for more
abortion clinics to be set up. The article then discussed the effects of the decision on
New York state law and quoted from that state’s health services administrator. The
article then quoted from the majority opinion in the case. The article continued to cover
19
statistics on infant mortality and the speed at which abortion would be affected by the
decision. The article brought in quotes from interests groups, but it largely stuck to facts
and statistics surrounding abortion laws. The article was still clearly more political than
the simple descriptions of the Court’s actions, but it relied on statistics and extensively
discussed legal repercussions of he case. The article was a mix of both procedural and
political portrayal.
16) The next article that significantly mentioned Roe v. Wade also explored the
legal effects of the decision on the medical community. The article focused on New
Jersey’s response to the decision and their relaxation of state abortion rules. It started by
quoting from the attorney general from New Jersey on how the state would be adhering
to the recent decision. The attorney general was quoted as clarifying what New Jersey’s
laws said on abortion, which matched up with the recent Court decision. He was also
quoted as criticizing the Court, saying that the decision “has placed a great burden on the
medical profession and on its integrity.” The article went on to outline the processes by
which abortions would be permitted and how New Jersey was reacting to Roe. The
article was political in nature because it addressed how the state of New Jersey would be
responding to the Court’s decision on abortion. It referenced current political issues such
as who deserved abortion and who should be qualified to make abortion decisions.
17) Another article, written by the same reporter, Joseph F. Sullivan, covered
much of the same information. The article tracked New Jersey’s legislative efforts to reregulate abortion in a more liberal manner. The piece mentioned, again, New Jersey’s
attorney general, and it mentioned the president of the New Jersey Hospital Association’s
20
views. The article focused less on Roe v. Wade than previous articles, but mentioned it in
a much political light.
18) Nearly two weeks after the decision was issued, Jane Brody again wrote an
article on the aftermath of the abortion ruling. The article showed how most states were
reacting to the decision slowly and cautiously, and it explored how anti-abortion groups
were responding to it. The article displayed the political atmosphere in the states as their
legislatures acted to bring their laws into compliance with the Court’s ruling. The article
went state by state for several states showing why they were delaying their enactment of
new laws. Primarily, states’ justifications for the delay involved studying and clarifying
the Supreme Court’s opinion. The article also featured the American Civil Liberties
Union’s response to state actions. The article did not mention the reasoning behind the
ruling, only on the political effects of it, and it brought in several outside opinions from
groups concerned with the new rules on abortion. The piece was clearly political in
nature.
For the articles on this case, the Times’ reporting became progressively more
political in nature. With initial pieces showing the actual actions by the Court, later
articles moved toward focusing on the political ramifications. The articles were split
somewhat evenly between political and procedural portrayals of the decision, but slightly
more of the articles focused on political ramifications for states and doctors. Worth
noting is that the New York Times ran many, many more articles on the debate over
abortion, but few of these referenced Roe v. Wade. The discussion over abortion was
eventually incredibly political and extended far beyond this case.
21
Public Opinion
Articles were split relatively between political portrayals and procedural
portrayals, and the media surrounding the case reached many people. According to the
General Social Survey in 1973, 86% of people had either “heard or read of the recent
Supreme Court decision concerning abortion.22 The ruling received slightly favorable
ratings. A Harris Interactive survey gauged the public’s favorability of the ruling at 52%
with only 41% opposed to the ruling.23
The case’s favorability was matched by the overall opinion of the Court. Although
polls at the time did not ask about favorability of the Court, several polls concerning
confidence in the Court were running. A Harris Interactive poll showed 33% of
respondents having a “great deal” of confidence in those “in charge of running” the
Court, 40% having “only some,” and only 20% having “hardly any.”24 A Gallup Poll
showed similar results. When asked about confidence in the institution of the Supreme
Court, 45% responded either “great deal” or “quite a lot,” and 17% responded either
“very little” or “none.” 25 The Harris Interactive poll result for 1973 was actually part of
an upward trend in confidence that lasted from 1971 to 1974, where it flattened out. The
Gallup result was from the first year they ran that particular survey, but, according to that
survey, confidence remained fairly similar from year to year until 1984. Gallup ran a
different survey, asking about the confidence in the branches of the government which
collected results in 1972 and -74, which had a slight increase, between the years, in those
22
General Social Survey 1973, Feb, 1973. Retrieved Apr-14-2014 from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper
Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
23
Harris, Louis. Publication. Harris Interactive. Harris Interactive, Inc., 19 Apr. 1973. Web.
24
Bowman, Karlyn H., and Andrew Rugg. "PUBLIC OPINION ON THE SUPREME COURT." AEI
Public Opinion Studies. AEI. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, June 2012. Web.
25
"Supreme Court." Gallup.Com. Gallup, Inc., 2014. Web.
22
responding with either a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the Supreme
Court.26 The media was evenly split between procedure and politics; this corresponds
very well to the relatively stable confidences in the Court. The polls show that 1973 was
a year in the midst of very stable, slightly increasing (by a couple of percentage points a
year) confidence in the Court and those that run it.
26
"Supreme Court." Gallup.Com. Gallup, Inc., 2014. Web.
23
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
Compared to the earlier decisions, this case was covered by more articles portraying it as
political. Five of the eight were political and three were procedural.
Articles
19) When the oral arguments were made for Lawrence v. Texas, the New York
Times released two articles. One was a selection of excerpts. As is to be expected, the
excerpts, all quotes from the Justices or the lawyers arguing the case, were highly legal in
nature and focused on the constitutional and logical reasoning behind the case. Political
consequences are not mentioned.
20) The other article from the argument phase of the case, by Linda Greenhouse,
mentioned some more political circumstances. It acknowledged that the case was
“cultural as well as constitutional” and pointed out that some members of the audience
were gay. For the most part, though, the article addressed how the lawyers and the
justices argued. It showed the reasoning behind the arguments and the reasoning for
either overturning Texas Law or upholding it. The article did not mention more political
aspects of the case.
21) On the day that the decision came out for Lawrence v. Texas, the New York
Times published an article by Joel Brinkley that outlined the circumstances of the case
and brought to light many of the political activist groups that were concerned with it.
Starting by quoting the opinions, the article quickly showed the political consequences of
the case. Its quotes concerned the “homosexual agenda” and whether a state can
“demean” homosexuals. The article briefly outlined the history of the case, showing how
the plaintiff was arrested and convicted of “deviate sexual intercourse” and wrote about
24
the previous case in Georgia over an anti-sodomy law. In doing so, the article started to
comment on gay rights activists and other political groups. The Lambda Legal Defense
and Education Fund, a gay-rights group, was focused on. Its legal director of was quoted
as saying the decision “will be a powerful tool for gay people […]” and how it stopped
the labeling of “the entire gay community as criminals and second-class citizens.” The
article then hit on conservatives’ “angry” reactions to the decision. In one quote from the
chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, the article highlights the future
possible implications for state laws: “If there’s no rational basis for prohibiting same-sex
sodomy by consenting adults, then state laws prohibiting prostitution, adultery, bigamy,
and incest are at risk […]Any attempt to equate sexual perversion with the institution that
is the very foundation of society is as baseless as this ruling.” The article covered a bit of
the history behind the right of privacy by quoting the plaintiff’s lawyer’s explanation of
the “tradition of respect for the privacy of couples in their home.” It finished with a
paragraph on Justice O’Connor’s view on the values of the Constitution. Overall, the
article was political in nature, and it highlighted some of the social values behind and
surrounding the decision.
22) In another article from the same day, the New York Times gave a much briefer
summary of the decision. The article outlined the circumstances and statistics around the
case. It showed the alignment of the opinions, the low number of laws that the case
might overturn, and the events that lead to the case. He article briefly mentioned political
activist groups, but moved on to show how Texas defended its anti- sodomy law. The
article was brief and surveyed the circumstances of the decision. It was not overtly
political in nature and did not show much of the legal reasoning behind the case;
25
however, it shall be considered more political in nature due to its references to gay
activists and its reference to “the culture war.”
23) Per their usual when a Supreme Court Case is decided, the New York Times
released an article with excerpts from the case, with selected quotes from the majority
and dissenting opinions. It therefore followed the legal reasoning behind the Justices’
decision to overturn laws prohibiting sodomy. Justice Kennedy, in writing the majority
opinion, addressed a bit of the moral reasoning behind banning sodomy, but, in doing so,
he specifically stated that the morals of some do not warrant such a restriction of liberty:
“Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.” In
stating such, Kennedy helped to remove political overtones from his decision, and from
the article. The dissent by Scalia accused the majority of not following legal precedent
properly and of following politics more than legal reasoning, but Scalia extensively
addressed the logical faults in the majority opinion. Despite the dissent’s quotes, the
article was still clearly a legal portrayal of the case.
24) An article by Linda Greenhouse, released on the same day as the excerpts,
addressed more of the political issues surrounding the case. Although the article started
with a brief explanation of the results of the case, it quickly addressed the social values at
play in the case. It quoted the majority opinion in a way that highlighted the controversy,
such as when Scalia wrote that the court had “taken sides in the culture war” and “largely
signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.” Even when quoting Kennedy, the article
highlighted the social issues: “its continuance [the Bowers decision that Lawrence
overruled] as precedent demeans the lives of homosexual persons.” The article also
looked for a political response from the executive branch. The White House press
26
secretary was asked for a comment, and the article noted that the Bush administration
filed no brief for the case. The article covered the “delicacy of the moment” for the
White House as it had to deal with “the socially conservative side of the Republican
Party.” The article also mentioned the libertarians’ response, and it quoted from the cochairman of the Republican Unity Coalition, a group of republicans attempting to “defuse
the issue within the party.” The repeated references and quotes of so many political
entities showed that the article was very much concerned with the politics surrounding
the issue and portrayed the Supreme Court’s decision in a much more political manner
than other articles. Although the article quoted from the opinions, it did so in a way that
accentuated the politics of the issue.
25) A few days after the decision, Greenhouse again published an article that
discussed Lawrence. The article was concerned with the broader subject of the Court’s
whole terms, but it included significant parts on the recent ruling. The article portrayed
the Court in a very political nature; it agreed with Justice Scalia’s assertion that the Court
has “taken sides in the culture war” by saying that “there was little dispute that, to some
degree, at least, he was right.” The article also showed the voting alignments for the
Court’s decisions and called the Justices “liberal” or “indisputably conservative.” The
article spent significant time on the political views of the Justices and brought in Walter
Dellinger, former solicitor general, to explain them:
“In fact, ''this term suggested a split between two kinds of conservative
Republicans,'' Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general and longtime
student of the court, said in an interview. Justices Kennedy and O'Connor ''share
the sensibilities of corporate Republicans, who often have a bit of a libertarian
streak in them,'' he said, while on social issues, ''Scalia and Thomas represent the
Moral Majority strain, which is vocal but not necessarily dominant.''
27
The article mentioned some legal issues (it quoted Kennedy’s argument that gays’
privacy is “a matter of constitutional due process”), but it focused on political
disagreements as reflected in the divided court. The article was only partially about the
Lawrence decision, but it portrayed the Court in an overwhelmingly political manner.
26) Several months after the Lawrence v. Texas was decided, the New York Times
published a lengthy article on the broad and historical implications of the decision, in
September, an article titled “How to Reignite the Culture Wars.” The article showed the
tensions between those that favored gay-rights and those that opposed them. It
highlighted religious groups, political activists, and governmental positions (specifically
President Bush’s stance on gay marriage). The article quoted extensively from some
groups over the reasoning behind the case. Phyllis Schafly, president of the conservative
group, Eagle Forum, was quoted as saying “It isn't so much the facts of the case; it's the
reasoning of Kennedy's majority opinion that was really very offensive to a lot of
people.” The article then showed some of the implications that the case would have on
future laws. It was almost completely political in nature; it showed all of the politics
surrounding the decision and next to nothing of the legal reasoning behind it.
Public Opinion
With the number of articles portraying Lawrence v. Texas in a political manner
outnumbering those that portrayed it in a procedural, legal manner, public opinion of the
Court dropped after the ruling. Before the case was decided, a Gallup poll showed that
the majority of Americans thought that homosexual relations between consenting adults
28
should be legal.27 After the ruling was announced, virtually the same percentage of
people approved of the way the court was handling its job.28 However, that rating was a
decline in popularity for the Court. The approval rating for the Court, as taken by a
Gallup poll in July of 2003, showed a decrease of approval by 1% and an increase in
disapproval of 4%.29 Those who answered the poll with no opinion dropped 3% as well.
In the same Gallup poll, confidence in the Court dropped that year, more so than the
usual drop of the longer trend. Those who answered they had a “great deal” of
confidence dropped 4% from the previous year, and those that answered they had a “fair
amount” dropped 4%. The combined categories, those that had either a great deal or a
fair amount of confidence, dropped from 75% to 67%, the biggest drop in the poll since
1976. The great deal/fair amount percentages had been holding steady around the 75%
level for several years (really since 1998) before 2003.
According to a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll and the New York Times,
approval of the specific decision in Lawrence was only 40%30. These reports sharply
contrast with a Harris poll which reported that a “72% to 19% majority agrees with the
decision that ‘it is not illegal for consenting adults to have homosexual sex in their own
homes.’”31 However, even with such a high approval of the actual decision and approval
of the merits of the decision, the public opinion of the Court dropped. This drop
27
Newport, Frank. "Six in 10 Americans Agree That Gay Sex Should Be Legal." Gallup. Gallup, Inc., 27
June 2003. Web.
28
Jones, Jeffrey M. "Nearly 6 in 10 Approve of Supreme Court." Gallup. Gallup, Inc., 17 July 2003. Web.
29
"Supreme Court." Gallup.Com. Gallup, Inc., 2014. Web.
30
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, Jun, 2003. Retrieved Apr-13-2014 from the iPOLL Databank, The
Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. and "Public Approval of Major
Court Decisions." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 July 2012. Web. This appears to be an
outlier that contrasts sharply with the Harris poll. Moreover, although the Times cited the Fox News poll,
no survey results or methods could be found online or in any of the numerous public opinion databases,
even after extensive searching.
31
Taylor, Humphrey. "Public Sharply Divided on Recent Supreme Court Decisions." The Harris Poll®
#42. Harris Interactive. Harris Interactive, Inc., 30 July 2003. Web.
29
corresponds to the media coverage. The ruling was portrayed mostly politically, and the
corresponding drops in public approval and confidence match up with the previous
changes in opinion toward the Court.
30
HOLLINGSWORTH V. PERRY AND U.S. V. WINDSOR
The same sex marriage cases generated significantly more political articles than other
cases. Out of the fifteen articles analyzed, eight were political in nature, three were
mixed, and four were procedural.
Articles
27) A month before the same-sex marriage cases were to be argued, a New York
Times piece covered how the Obama administration had given its support to marriage
equality by filing briefs in favor of it for Hollingsworth v. Perry. The article covered the
details of the brief and reactions to it by both sides of the case. Both sides were quoted
on their political views, whether gays are entitled to the same rights as straights and
whether the government is really protecting those “raising the next generation.” The
article covered some of the legal issues in the case, but focused on the Obama
administration’s position. It covered some of the changes President Obama has made in
his own positions on gay marriage, and it covered some of the attitudes of supporters of
same-sex marriage. It wrapped up with some of the legal issues the briefs covered and
how, procedurally, the case should be decided. The article quoted from political figures,
but it also evenly covered how the briefs legally argued. It did not portray the upcoming
cases as too political and it did show some of the legal arguments being made. The
article was about evenly split between being more procedural or political in nature.
28) Before U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry were to be argued, the
New York Times published an article chronicling San Francisco’s fight against a ban on
same-sex marriage. Starting with how public officials in San Francisco started to fight
against California’s Proposition 8, the article spent time exploring the group of lawyers
31
that helped spark the nation-wide fight against same-sex marriage law. It then moved on
to some of the legal complications the Supreme Court faced. Then the article contained
quotes from prominent attorneys arguing for or against the same-sex marriage ban, but
those attorneys were either members or leaders of interest groups, such as John Eastman,
the chairman of the National Association for Marriage, or they were members of the law
firm bringing the suit. Their quotes were particularly critical of each other and very
political. Eastman said that government officials had shown a “’a cavalier attitude
toward their duties to enforce the law,’ and Dennis J. Herrera, San Francisco’s attorney
and one who has been involved in almost every part of the legal battle, said that when a
disfavored minority is being targeted, it’s up to a public law office to stop it.’” The news
piece moved on to chronicle more of how the legal team fighting Proposition 8 was
pieced together, exploring signing bonuses and other lawyers that have joined Herrera’s
team. The article did label several Justices, either as “more liberal” or as “by some
measures the most conservative justice on the current court.” Toward the end of the
article, some legal points were brought out over briefs filed for the Court and over some
points that they attempt to win, but the article did not go into detail. Although the article
did cover some of the legal points that Herrara’s team would have to win, it portrayed the
case very politically for both parties in the case.
29) A week before the two cases were to be argued, the Times released a brief
article announcing that the oral arguments in the two cases would be released by the
Court the same day that they are argued. The article gave examples of other cases where
such a thing had happened, but did not address either the merits of the case or the politics
surrounding the case.
32
30) In an article formatted as a question and answer, a couple of days before the
case was scheduled to be argued, the New York Times outlined the merits of
Hollingsworth v. Perry. The questions and answers focused on both the case and the
politics surrounding it. Starting by establishing the stakes and the history of the case, the
article stuck to how the case had been brought to the Supreme Court and how the lawyers
would be expected to argue it. The article then brought in the current position of the
Obama administration. Returning to legal issues, the article explained the upcoming
argument process and how the Court would reason legally to decide the case. It outlined
the legal arguments being made by both sides of the case and how the case could be
decided. For the most part, the article was legally oriented, but it did mention some of
the current political positions of the executive branch.
31) In another article, the New York Times compared the upcoming cases with
their previous decision in Roe v. Wade. The article was very politically focused. Right at
the start, the article pointed out how the previous case, Roe, had “created a culture war”
and labeled Justice Ginsburg “a liberal and a champion of women’s rights.” The article
showed how opponents of same-sex marriage used the effects of the Roe decision to
argue against the court changing law in the upcoming cases. The article quoted the
chairman of the National Organization for Marriage’s very political statements about the
upcoming case: “The lesson [the Court] should draw is that when you are moving beyond
the clear command of the Constitution, you should be very hesitant about shutting down a
political debate.” Although the statement is a legal argument, it shows that the issue is
political and that the chairman thinks it should be dealt with politically. The article
continued to compare and quote others who compared the upcoming two cases with Roe
33
v. Wade. Opponents of Judicial intervention into the matter of same-sex marriage
continued to argue that the Courts would be effecting the same results of Roe, where “the
court essentially took the laws deregulating abortion in four states and turned them into a
constitutional command for the other 46.” Proponents of same-sex marriage were also
quoted in the article. At the conclusion of it, it outlined some of the possible outcomes of
the cases. The article, due to its repeated quoting of political figures and its
characterization of Justice Ginsburg, definitely portrayed the case in a political manner.
Even when the article quoted lawyers (some of the political figures were also lawyers) or
professors of law, it focused on their opinion on the politics surrounding same-sex
marriage and the possible political aftermaths.
32) As arguments were being made, an article was published that explored the
oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry and how the Justices were reacting to them. It
started with the difficulty the Justices had just to hear the case, particularly whether those
that appealed it had standing to do so, but the article then moved on to showing some of
the attitudes held by the Justices. Justice Kennedy “voiced sympathy for the children of
gay couples,” while Justice Alito warned that “the court should not move too fast.” The
article also quoted from the arguing attorneys, one of whom said that the question before
the court was “an agonizingly difficult, for many people, political question.” The article
eventually covered some of the history of the case, specifically how it was decided in
earlier, lower courts and continued to show the struggle the Justices had with taking the
case. The article was quite political; it explored some of the political tendencies of the
individual Justices and quoted someone outright claiming that the issue was purely
political. Although claiming that the issue was purely political was an argument made in
34
defense of the ban on same-sex marriage, it did show the court acting on something
political. The article covered some of the history of the case and was decidedly political
in nature.
33) The day that the arguments were made, the New York Times released an
article chronicling the oral arguments. Although the article covered the arguments, it
used a political viewpoint. It called the Justices predicted to overturn D.O.M.A. liberal
and repeatedly referred to them as such. The article quoted the Justices and Paul
Clement, an attorney defending D.O.M.A. Both spoke about Congress but Justice Kagan
was quoted to have brought out the politics of the situation: “Do we think that Congress’s
judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus and so forth?” The article briefly
mentioned some of the history of the case, but then quoted the Justices bringing out the
politics of the issue. The article quoted Chief Justice Robert’s negative opinion on
President Obama’s enforcement of the law. As a counterpoint, the article quoted remarks
from White House officials. The article then returned to the facts behind the case and the
possible legal outcomes. This article contained much of the politics surrounding the case,
even showing some of the political views of the Justices. Although it outlined some of
the history behind the case, most of the article was focused on political issues and
political actors.
34) After arguments were made in court, an article was published that explored
some of the ways the Court could have decided to hear a case and then seriously
reconsidered whether they had had the power to do so with Hollingsworth v. Perry. The
article portrayed the Justices in a very political manner, showing them politicking to
achieve their goals with minimal emphasis on legal reasoning. After showing the
35
differences in voting needed to hear a case and to decide a case, the article pointed to the
“conservative members of the court” as those that cause the case to be heard: “After
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested that the court should dismiss the case, Justice
Antonin Scalia tipped his hand. ‘It’s too late for that now, isn’t it?’ he said, a note of glee
in his voice. ‘We have crossed that river,’ he said. That was a signal that it was a
conservative grant.” The article explored different ideas as to why the Court had decided
to hear the case. One idea was that “the court’s four liberals were ready to try to capture
Justice Kennedy’s decisive vote to establish a right to same-sex marriage around the
nation,” and another was that the conservatives did not feel their odds of preventing
same-sex marriage would improve. The article later pointed to more strategizing by the
justices by quoting a law professor who found “pretty strong evidence that the justices act
more strategically in high-profile cases.” In another quote from a different law professor,
the article showed how “‘The justices can’t quite resist getting involved in major cases,’
Professor Perry said. ‘This is going to come out quite unsatisfactorily to a lot of people.’”
Although the article quoted law professors, the quotes centered on the Justices’
politicking and strategizing. This article clearly portrayed the Justices’ decision-making
process as something less legal and more personal and political.
35) Several days before the decisions were scheduled to be announced, the New
York Times published an article that showed how some of the upcoming rulings could
fundamentally change several major institutions (marriage, education, and voting). The
article gave brief summaries of several cases and spent little time on U.S. v. Windsor or
Hollingsworth v. Perry. It showed how Chief Justice Roberts “suggested in March that
ordinary politics would sort things out” over the issues in Windsor. It briefly covered
36
how Hollingsworth v. Perry may be dismissed. The article contained little more than
brief summaries of some cases, but it also presented aspects that characterized the cases a
political. It showed how some believe the issues before the court are just political and it
called Justice Kennedy the “member of the court at its ideological center.” It also quoted
a law professor on how the Court interacted with politics: “In giving something to
liberals and something to conservatives, as it often does, Professor Strauss said, ‘the court
has avoided putting itself in a position where either side wants to declare war on them.’”
36) On the day that the decisions were announced for U.S. v. Windsor and
Hollingsworth v. Perry, a plethora of articles were published covering the decision. One
focused on the reactions of the crowds to the ruling. The article quoted gay-rights
activists and showed how invested in the case they were. The article also quoted a
Reverend of the Evangelical Church Alliance, an interest group opposing same-sex
marriage. The article continued to bring in quotes from those either opposed to or in
favor of same-sex marriage. The article was clearly political in nature. It did not focus at
all on the merits of the case; it merely showed political reactions to the case.
37) Another article released that day explored the celebrations by supporters of
same-sex marriage and the reactions by those that opposed it. The article quoted both
political figures for and against marriage equality and non-political, laymen. It quoted
from Republican Representative Tim Huelskamp (Kansas) criticizing the Court as
attempting to undercut normal legislative processes: “short-circuit the process and to
undo a decision, a strong bipartisan decision, signed by President Bill Clinton and
supported by then-Senator Joe Biden; for this court to overrule it, I think folks are tired of
judges dictating.” The article also quoted President Obama’s support of the decision.
37
The quote from President Obama referenced political idea and morals. When the article
quoted laypeople, it quoted their views on the decision and on politics of same-sex
marriage. Several more Representatives were quoted, each either celebrating the decision
(most commenting on how freedom and equality had benefitted) or vowing to continue
their attempts to define marriage. The article also quoted Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the
first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, who spoke about morals behind samesex marriage. The article was undoubtedly political in nature. It did not reference at all
the legal reasoning behind the case; it only mentioned the political views of many people
on the issue decided upon in the ruling.
38) In a different article, the Times covered more of the legal logic that lead to the
rulings. It covered how the Justices voted and how the decisions were announced. It
then started in on the law. It quoted the Justices’ opinions and covered the constitutional
bases for the decision, citing federalism, equal protection, and due process. The article
did mention some things political in nature. It did label some of the justices as “more
conservative,” and it mention how the ruling would affect President Obama’s
administration. The article explained how the Windsor case had come to be and then
moved on to the legal reasons for the Hollingsworth decision. It briefly covered some of
the effects of both cases. The article portrayed the cases in a primarily legal fashion,
citing different constitutional items and showing legal precedents.
39) The same day, the Times released a guide to the decision in Hollingsworth
explaining the legal reasoning behind the ruling. The article quoted from the opinions of
the Court extensively. Although both the article and its quoted opinions mentioned
38
political activists, it focused on the legal question of whether the Proposition 8 supporters
had standing. The article was purely legal.
40) In a very similar article, written by the same author, the Times also explained
the legal reasoning behind U.S. v. Windsor. Again, the article quoted extensively from
the opinions of the Court. The only nods to the politics of same-sex marriage were
contained in the dissenting opinions, which claimed the matter was political and not
legal. Again, though, the little mentions of politics were in regards to the legal reasoning
behind the opinions. This article was also purely legal.
41) Months after the cases, in October, the Times published an article on the
effects of the rulings on same-sex marriage. The article covered the financial effects of
the D.O.M.A. rulings on gay couples. The article quoted financial planners and gay
advocacy groups, but did not cover much on how the decision was made. It simply
explored how new tax rules would apply to same-sex couples.
Public Opinion
According to a Gallup Poll, since 2012, more Americans have been in favor of
recognizing same-sex marriages as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages,
than those opposed to it. This statistic did not change much after the rulings on U.S. v.
Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, but it could traditionally be a predictor for public
approval of the court for overturning a law contrary to such a belief, especially for a case
so public.
The public approved of the Court’s decisions. A Quinnipiac University National
poll, started on July 28th, 2013, found that 62% of poll respondents agreed with the
39
Court’s decision on D.O.M.A.32, and an ABC News poll showed similar results, with
56% of respondents either approving strongly or somewhat, compared to the 41% that
disapproved somewhat or strongly.33 The decision over Prop. 8 was slightly less popular,
but still showed favorability: 51% favored the ruling, while 45% did not. Taken together,
according to a Pew poll, 45% approve of the decisions, while 40% disapproved.34
Despite approval of the actual decisions, support for the Court actually declined
after the rulings were released. According to another Pew poll, started June 27th, a day
after the rulings were announced, the court was viewed favorably by only 48%,
unfavorably by 38%,35 compared to a survey they conducted in March, 52% viewed the
court favorably, against 31% unfavorable.36 This drop in approval was also shown with
the previously mentioned Quinnipiac University poll, which found that 45% approved of
the court and 44% disapproved.37
This difference between approval of results and approval of the Court could be
related to how the public perceives the Court. The media released on these cases was
extensively political. In May, several survey results showed that people think that factors
other than legal analysis contribute to how Justices make decisions. A poll by CBS
News/The New York Times showed that only 20% of respondents think that “Justices
32
"Clinton Tops Christie By 6 Points In 2016 Race, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds;
Republicans Take Bigger Hit For Gridlock." Quinnipiac University. Quinnipiac University, 12 July 2013.
Web.
33
Langer, Gary. "Many Criticize Voting Rights Ruling; Partisan Splits on Gay Marriage Continue." ABC
News. ABC News Network, 03 July 2013. Web.
34
"Public Divided over Same-Sex Marriage Rulings." People-Press.org. Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press, 1 July 2013. Web.
35
"Supreme Court's Favorability Edges Below 50%." People-Press.org. Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press, 24 July 2013. Web.
36
"Supreme Court's Favorable Rating Still at Historic Low." People-Press.org. Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press, 25 Mar. 2013. Web.
37
"Clinton Tops Christie By 6 Points In 2016 Race, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Republicans
Take Bigger Hit For Gridlock." Quinnipiac University. Quinnipiac University, 12 July 2013. Web.
40
decide their cases based on legal analysis without regard to their own personal political
views,” but 68% thought that “they sometimes let their own personal or political views
influence their decisions”.38 In another study in May, the Public Religion Research
Institute (PRRI) found that 55% think that the Justices are influenced by their political
views “a lot” and 32% think “a little,” and 37% believe that they are influenced by their
religious beliefs “a lot” and 44% think “a little.”39 Compared with the public’s view that
the Court should consider only legal issues (47% in the same PRRI study, compared to
45% that said it should consider what the public thinks).40 Another study by CBS, in
March, showed similar results: 46% think the Court should “only consider the legal
issues involved,” and 45% think it could consider what the majority of the public
thinks.41 With such a large chunk of the public thinking that the Court should look only
to legal analysis, the fact that approval ratings dropped after such publicized, politicized
rulings. (The public watched the cases on same-sex marriage fairly closely; a Pew poll
showed that 22% of the public was following the cases “very closely,” and 29% was
following it “fairly closely.”42 The cases drew massive political rallies and spurred much
political debate. People responded negatively to the Court’s ruling where many articles
portrayed the cases politically. Although other factors exist in how people feel about the
Court, a definite relationship exists between media portrayal and public opinion.
38
"Poll: Slim Majority Backs Same-sex Marriage." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 6 June 2013. Web.
"PRRI Religion & Politics Tracking Poll." Public Religion. Public Religion Research Institute, 23 May
2013. Web.
40
"PRRI Religion & Politics Tracking Poll." Public Religion. Public Religion Research Institute, 23 May
2013. Web.
41
"Poll: 60% Think Federal Gov't Should Recognize Same-sex Marriages." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 26
Mar. 2013. Web.
42
"Gun Debate Draws More Interest than Immigration Policy Debate." People-Press.org. Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press, 8 Apr. 2013. Web.
39
41
CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Findings
In summation, the proportion of articles portraying the Court as political has
increased over time. The following graphs display visually the trends found in the cases’
articles analyzed. The graphs show Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor in the
same sections.
Article Totals
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Article Proportions
Hollingsworth and
Windsor
Lawrence
Roe
Griswold
0
Political
Neutral
Procedural
Political
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Neutral
1
Procedural
The trend shows an increase in the number of articles that portray the cases politically
from the Griswold case to reporting on Lawrence. .Although the proportion of articles
that portray cases politically in Lawrence is slightly larger than that of the same-sex
marriage cases, the increasing trend still exists when comparing those to Roe and
Griswold. Compared with the trend in confidence in the court, some correlation exists.
The following data were taken from Gallup surveys.43
43
"Supreme Court." Gallup.Com. Gallup, Inc. Web. Note that some surveys were conducted by Gallup
that were not run in the 1980s that asked similar questions. Additionally, Harris ran a survey that showed a
wild fluctuation in the “Great Deal” responses and an increase in the “Only Some” responses over time.
Because the survey does not break down the levels of confidence as well as the Gallup Poll, it is omitted.
See the AEI report cited elsewhere.
42
Confidence in Court
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
May-73
October-78
April-84
October-89
April-95 September-00 March-06 September-11
Great Deal
Quite a Lot
Some
Very Little
None (vol.)
No Opinion
Great Deal/ Quite a Lot
As the graph and data show, confidence has generally been declining. A line of best fit
has been superimposed on the combined responses of “Great Deal” and “Quite a Lot” to
help illustrate the trend (R2 value is 0.3246). Confidence levels have been the longest
running items
Confidence in Court
polled on the
Supreme Court, so
they have been
included here. A
condensed version
60
40
20
0
1973
1978
1983
1988
1993
1998
2003
2008
of the above graph
helps illustrate the
trends. Other
Great deal/Quite a lot
Some
Very little/none
Linear (Great deal/Quite a lot)
Linear (Some)
Linear (Very little/none)
measures of popular
support for the Court, like favorability, have also been declining. A measurement of
43
approval of the Supreme Court’s job handling shows a decline since 2001.44 Pew Polls
taken since 1987, also showed a decline in “overall opinion.” 45 A correlation clearly
exists between the increasingly political portrayal of the Court and the decline in public
support. This finding is was also found in Mark Ramirez’s study on perceptions of the
Court.46
Possible Explanations
Many things affect how the public responds to media. Ramirez’s study clearly
shows that procedural portrayals of the Court have a positive effect on people’s opinion
of it. His findings show that “differences in support for the Court can be attributed to
how media coverage alters perceptions of procedural justice.”47
Studies of media coverage have found that a variety of factors can influence
public opinion responses to the media. When the media cites experts, political figures,
and interest groups, public opinion changes in different ways. Experts, in this study the
Justices and law professors, whose usage helps qualify articles as procedural portrayal,
tend to have a positive influence on public opinion on an issue. According to a study by
Benjamin I. Page, Robert Y. Shapiro, and Glenn R. Dempsey “those [they] have
categorized as ‘experts’ have quite a substantial impact on public opinion.”48 They
showed that the public “tends to place considerable trust” in experts, and public opinion
44
"Supreme Court." Gallup.Com. Gallup, Inc. Web.
Bowman, Karlyn H., and Andrew Rugg. "PUBLIC OPINION ON THE SUPREME COURT." AEI
Public Opinion Studies. AEI. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, June 2012: 12.
Web.
46
Ramirez, Mark D. "Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court." Political
Psychology 29.5 (2008): 675-98. Print.
47
Ramirez, Mark D. "Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court." Political
Psychology 29.5 (2008): 675-98. Print.
48
Page, Benjamin I., Robert Y. Shapiro, and Glenn R. Dempsey. "What Moves Public Opinion?" The
American Political Science Review 81.1 (1987): 23-44. Print.
45
44
tends to follow the messages of them. In regards to how the media portrays the Court,
having experts like the Justices and law professors (those that are not part of interest
groups), which shows the media as procedurally portraying the Court, should positively
influence opinion of the Court and garner support.
Interest groups, however, “tend to have a negative effect on public opinion.”49
The use of interest groups helped articles become categorized as political in nature, so the
corresponding drop in public approval agrees with Page et al.’s research. According to
the research, the impact of political figures depends on the favorability of the figure. The
impact is small, but if they are favored, they had a positive impact on opinion.
Over the years, the type of reporting on the Court has changed considerably. The
Supreme Court is reported on in an unusual fashion compared to other government
institutions. Much reporting is done by reporters unskilled in law, and those reporters are
required to digest “voluminous” information each day rulings are announced.50 The New
York Times seems to escape this situation. Many of their articles are written by a single
reporter. Linda Greenhouse and Adam Liptak, the Times’ main court reporters, both have
law degrees and were responsible for much of the press surrounding the cases this thesis
analyzed. However, they were not the only ones, and, over the course of the study,
changes can be seen in the style of reporting.
As scholars have shown, over time the news media increasingly focused on the
politics of the issues. The articles started showing more of the partisan alliances of the
49
Page, Benjamin I., Robert Y. Shapiro, and Glenn R. Dempsey. "What Moves Public Opinion?" The
American Political Science Review 81.1 (1987): 37. Print.
50
Graber, Doris A. Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1980.
Print.
45
Justices and how political groups interacted with the Court. Thomas Patterson, although
not writing directly about court reporting, showed how a major shift has occurred for the
media. They have decreased the amount of press released on the actual happenings of
American politics and started focusing on the strategizing behind them. He explained:
“Reporters in the 1960’s began to chafe at the restrictive rules of objective journalism
[…].” There emerged a “new aggressive style of reporting.” Although he explained that
this new style was more prominent in television, and newspapers remained somewhat a
“string of related facts,” they still followed the changes. Media began to “display the
attributes of fiction, of drama.” It began to have “structure and conflict, problem and
denouement, rising action and falling action […].”51 This change be clearly seen in
these articles. For example, the earlier summaries of Court events are collections of
related facts, while article 28 is a perfect example of the later story-telling. This change
corresponds to the drop in public opinion toward the Supreme Court.
Scope and Limitations of Study
The scope of this study is clearly small. The study used a small selection of
media on a small selection of cases. Although the selection of media was meant to be
representative of mainstream media at large, using only New York Times articles that
appeared in print could introduce error or bias into the study. Despite using the so-called
newspaper of record, this study missed much more media that was published in print or
online, and it completely omitted news delivered through television. The media used
excluded any of the intentional partisan news slants displayed by many news blogs and
by organizations such as MSNBC or Fox News. Although the Times does have a slight
51
Patterson, Thomas E. Out of Order. New York: A. Knopf, 1993. Print
46
liberal bias,52 much of the liberal bias is contained in the editorials, at which this study
does not look. The Times editorial page was admittedly biased in favor of same-sex
marriage.53 Again, however, the articles cited for this bias did not contain those articles
related to the Court cases this study focused on.
Another limitation arises from the type and number of cases chosen. The
Supreme Court has issued hundreds of rulings each year, so a sample of four cases is
incredibly small compared with the total number of decisions.54 The type of cases chosen
also only presents a small piece of the variety of cases the Court hears. Public opinion of
the Court could react differently to media based on the type of cases heard. Indeed,
Cladeira and Gibson show that opinions on abortion correlate more strongly with support
of the Court than capital punishment, gun control, and even pornography, among issues
the Court deals with.55 That correlation would mean that the media’s relationship with
the public’s opinion should influence the approval and support of the Court more so than
with other issues. Still though, this study over a small selection of a single type of case
issue, and larger, overall approval of the Court is influenced by many other cases.
The changes seen in media from the more fact-based blurbs of information to the
politically focused story telling on these cases could reflect other, greater political trends
like the growing public political activism surrounding social issues. Political protest
especially has been on the rise, and protest, being such a public event, often makes the
52
Groseclose, Tim, and Jeff Milyo. "A Measure of Media Bias." (December 2004). Web.
Okrent, Daniel. "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" The New York Times. The New York
Times, 24 July 2004. Web
54
"About the Supreme Court." United States Courts. Administrative Office of the U.S. Court. Web. 16 Apr.
2014
55
Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson. "The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court."
American Journal of Political Science 36.3 (1992): 645. Print.
53
47
news.56 Additionally, the increasing polarization of American voters has helped
stimulate political engagement.57 These factors could be influencing the relationship
between public views of the Supreme Court and media coverage of cases.
This study only covers how public opinion of the Court is related to media
portrayal. It does not cover any of the other multitude of factors that relate to or cause
changes in public opinion. This study only attempts to glean some insight into the
relationship between media portrayal and Supreme Court favorability.
Significance for the Court
Public opinion is very important for the Court. Although few people would be
willing to eliminate the Court,58 congressional and executive support rest on the public’s
support of the Court:
“[…] the idea of important linkages between the public’s evaluation of the
Court and its institutional capacity has also been an explicit statement of the
Supreme Court’s “self-concept,” since the nineteenth century. In United States v.
Lee (1882), Justice Miller writes, the Supreme Court’s “power and influence rest
solely upon the public sense of … confidence reposed in the soundness of [its]
decisions and the purity of [its] motives.” Likewise, Justice Frankfurter
emphasizes, “ the Court’s authority—possessed of neither the purse nor the
sword—ultimately rests on sustained public confidence in its moral sanction’
(Baker v Carr 1962; see also Justice O’Connor writing in Planned Parenthood v.
Casey 1992).”59
56
Norris, Pippa. “Democratic Phoenix.” Cambridge: John F. Kennedy School of Government, 2002. Web.
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. "Is polarization a myth?." The Journal of Politics 70.02
(2008): 542-555.
58
Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson. "The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court."
American Journal of Political Science 36.3 (1992): 640. Print.
59
"An Appeal to the People": Public Opinion and Congressional Support for the Supreme Court
Joseph Daniel Ura and Patrick C. Wohlfarth
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, No. 4 (OCTOBER 2010), pp. 939-956
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association
57
48
Whether public approval is directly or indirectly (through the executive or legislative
branches) responsible for the Court’s power, the Court must maintain its legitimacy and
power by maintaining its favorability with the public.
If the Court wishes to appear above politics, findings from this thesis suggest it
could consider a couple of steps. First, the Court could attempt avoid hearing and
deciding upon issues that the public perceives as solely political. Hearing cases on issues
that are highly political increases the political portrayal of the Court. Having media
report on the liberal or the conservative sides of the Court leads to a higher politicization
of the Court and a related drop in public approval. Second, the Court should maximize
its publicity on the procedural process through which decisions are made. Such publicity
would help change the type of media portrayal into one that garners higher support from
the public. In total, the Court should attempt to portray itself as existing above politics,
which is already part of the reason the Court has such strong support.60
The feasibility of these suggestions is questionable. The Court cannot control
how the media portrays it or what the media focuses on in the opinions, but it can avoid
some politicizing comments it makes during oral arguments and during the readings of
the opinions. The Court, though it does decide which cases to hear, to stay an effective
institution, must hear cases that may be political in nature. When it does, though, it
should try to emphasize the constitutional law behind the case in language clear enough
that people and the media can understand the legality of the issue. In addition, it could
avoid politicizing language in the opinions. For example, the Court should avoid
60
Baird, Vanessa A., and Amy Gangl. "Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the Media’s
Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on the Perceptions of Fairness." Political Psychology 27.4 (2006).
Print.
49
comments like Scalia’s “It’s too late for that now, isn’t it?” in article 34. Though limited
in its ability to influence the media, the Court could take small steps to help limit political
portrayal.
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"About the Supreme Court." United States Courts. Administrative Office of the U.S.
Court. Web. 16 Apr. 2014
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Kyle L. Saunders. "Is polarization a myth?." The Journal of
Politics 70.02 (2008): 542-555.
"An Appeal to the People": Public Opinion and Congressional Support for the Supreme
Court Joseph Daniel Ura and Patrick C. Wohlfarth
Baird, Vanessa A., and Amy Gangl. "Shattering the Myth of Legality: The Impact of the
Media’s Framing of Supreme Court Procedures on the Perceptions of Fairness."
Political Psychology 27.4 (2006). Print.
Bowman, Karlyn H., and Andrew Rugg. "PUBLIC OPINION ON THE SUPREME
COURT." AEI Public Opinion Studies. AEI. American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research, June 2012: 12. Web.
Caldeira, Gregory A., and James L. Gibson. "The Etiology of Public Support for the
Supreme Court." American Journal of Political Science 36.3 (1992): 640. Print.
"Clinton Tops Christie By 6 Points In 2016 Race, Quinnipiac University National Poll
Finds; Republicans Take Bigger Hit For Gridlock." Quinnipiac University.
Quinnipiac University, 12 July 2013. Web.
Dudley, Michaela C., and Allison Nolan. "United States v. Windsor." LII / Legal
Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web.
51
Durr, Robert H., Andrew D. Martin, and Christina Wolbrecht. "Ideological Divergence
and Public Support for the Supreme Court." American Journal of Political Science
44.4 (2000): 775. Print.
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "The New York Times (American
Newspaper)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web.
"Erdos & Morgan: Press Releases- Erdos & Morgan Releases 2011 Opinion Leaders
Study." Erdos & Morgan. Erdos & Morgan, Inc., 4 Nov. 2011. Web.
"Erdos & Morgan: Press Releases- Erdos & Morgan Releases 2013 Opinion Leaders
Study." Erdos & Morgan. Erdos & Morgan, Inc., 5 Dec. 2013. Web
"Excerpts From Opinions of Supreme Court in Barring Curbs on Birth Control." The
New York Times 8 June 1965: 34. The New York Times. The New York Times.
Web.
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, Jun, 2003. Retrieved Apr-13-2014 from the iPOLL
Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of
Connecticut.
Gallup Poll # 1963-0675: Satisfaction/1964 Presidential Election. Rep. Roper Center for
Public Opinion Research. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC OPINION, 23
July 1963. Web.
Gallup Poll # 1967-0747: Vietnam War/Politics. Rep. Roper Center for Public Opinion
Research. Gallup Organization, 27 June 1967. Web.
52
Gallup/Potomac Poll # 1964-633POS: National Survey of Attitudes, Hopes, and Fears.
Rep. Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Potomac Associates, 21 Sept.
1964. Web.
General Social Survey 1973, Feb, 1973. Retrieved Apr-14-2014 from the iPOLL
Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of
Connecticut.
Graber, Doris A. Mass Media and American Politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional
Quarterly, 1980. Print.
“Griswold v. Connecticut | LII / Legal Information Institute.” Web.
Groseclose, Tim, and Jeff Milyo. "A Measure of Media Bias." (December 2004). Web.
"Gun Debate Draws More Interest than Immigration Policy Debate." People-Press.org.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 8 Apr. 2013. Web.
Harris, Louis. Publication. Harris Interactive. Harris Interactive, Inc., 19 Apr. 1973. Web.
Harris Survey, Nov, 1966. Retrieved Apr-15-2014 from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper
Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.
Jones, Jeffrey M. "Americans' Trust in Government Generally Down This Year. “Gallup
Politics. Gallup, Inc., 26 Sept. 2013. Web.
Jones, Jeffrey M. "Nearly 6 in 10 Approve of Supreme Court." Gallup. Gallup, Inc., 17
July 2003. Web.
53
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 72, No. 4 (OCTOBER 2010), pp. 939-956 Published by:
Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science
Association
Langer, Gary. "Many Criticize Voting Rights Ruling; Partisan Splits on Gay Marriage
Continue." ABC News. ABC News Network, 03 July 2013. Web.
LAWRENCE AND GARNER v. TEXAS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent
College of Law. and Lawrence v. Texas. U.S. Supreme Court. 26 June 2003.
Print.
Lee, Edmund. "New York Times Tops USA Today to Become No. 2 U.S. Paper."
Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 30 Apr. 2013. Web.
"Measuring Issue Salience." American Journal of Political Science 44.1 (2000): 66-83.
JSTOR. ITHAKA, 13 May 2004. Web.
Newport, Frank. "Six in 10 Americans Agree That Gay Sex Should Be Legal." Gallup.
Gallup, Inc., 27 June 2003. Web.
Norris, Pippa. Democratic Phoenix. Cambridge: John F. Kennedy School of Government,
2002. Web.
Okrent, Daniel. "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" The New York Times.
The New York Times, 24 July 2004. Web
Page, Benjamin I., Robert Y. Shapiro, and Glenn R. Dempsey. "What Moves Public
Opinion?" The American Political Science Review 81.1 (1987): 37. Print.
Patterson, Thomas E. Out of Order. New York: A. Knopf, 1993. Print
"Poll: 60% Think Federal Gov't Should Recognize Same-sex Marriages." CBSNews.
CBS Interactive, 26 Mar. 2013. Web.
54
"Poll: Slim Majority Backs Same-sex Marriage." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 6 June
2013. Web.
"PRRI Religion & Politics Tracking Poll." Public Religion. Public Religion Research
Institute, 23 May 2013. Web.
"Public Approval of Major Court Decisions." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 17 July 2012. Web.
"Public Divided over Same-Sex Marriage Rulings." People-Press.org. Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press, 1 July 2013. Web.
"Public Trust in Government: 1958-2013." Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press RSS. Pew Research Center, 18 Oct. 2013. Web.
Ramirez, Mark D. "Procedural Perceptions and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court."
Political Psychology 29.5 (2008): 675-98. Print.
"Roe v. Wade." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d.
Web.
"Supreme Court." Gallup.Com. Gallup, Inc. Web.
"Supreme Court's Favorability Edges Below 50%." People-Press.org. Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press, 24 July 2013. Web.
"Supreme Court's Favorable Rating Still at Historic Low." People-Press.org. Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press, 25 Mar. 2013. Web.
Santoro, Thomas, and Stephen Wirth. "Hollingsworth v. Perry." LII / Legal Information
Institute. Cornell University Law School. Web.
55
Taylor, Humphrey. "Public Sharply Divided on Recent Supreme Court Decisions." The
Harris Poll® #42. Harris Interactive. Harris Interactive, Inc., 30 July 2003. Web.
56
APPENDIX A
1) "Connecticut Wins on Birth Control." The New York Times 12 May 1964: 39. Print.
2) "The Summary of Actions Taken by the Supreme Court." The New York Times 8 Dec.
1964: 41. Print.
3) "Connecticut's Ban On Contraceptives Goes to High Court." The New York Times 8
Dec. 1964: 47. Print.
4) Pomfret, John D. "Marital Status Becomes an Issue In High Court Birth-Control
Case." The New York Times 31 Mar. 1965: 41+. Print.
5) "Excerpts From Opinions of Supreme Court in Barring Curbs on Birth Control." The
New York Times 8 June 1965: 34. Print.
6) "A Gentle Crusader." The New York Times 8 June 196534. Print.
7) Graham, Fred P. "7-to-2 Ruling Establishes Marriage Privileges -- Stirs Debate." The
New York Times 8 June 1965: 1+. Print
8) "Actions Taken by U.S. Supreme Court." The New York Times 8 June 1965: 58. Print.
9) Kihss, Peter. "Bill for Liberalizing New York Statute Goes to the State Senate; State
Senate Gets a Birth Control Bill." The New York Times 8 June 1965: 35. Print.
10) Cogley, John. "Bishops and the Court." The New York Times 26 Aug. 1965: 42.
Print.
11) "Summary of Actions Taken on Cases Before the Supreme Court." The New York
Times 4 May 1971: 30. Print.
12) "Summary of Actions Taken by the Supreme Court." The New York Times 23 Jan.
1973: 22. Print.
13) "Excerpts From Abortion Case." The New York Times 23 Jan. 1973: 20. Print.
14) Farrell, William E. "Ruling Seems to Forestall Abortion Debate in Albany." The New
York Times 23 Jan. 1973: 1+. Print.
15) Brody, Jane E. "Questions Left Unanswered by Ruling on Abortion." The New York
Times 24 Jan. 1973: 14. Print.
16) Sullivan, Joseph F. "JERSEY RELAXES ABORTION RULES." The New York
Times 1 Feb. 1973: 73+. Print.
17) Sullivan, Joseph F. "Assembly To Consider New Statute On Abortion." The New
York Times 4 Feb. 1973: 68. Print.
18) Brody, Jane E. "States and Doctors Wary On Eased Abortion Ruling." 16 Feb. 1973:
1+. Print.
19) "Excerpts From Arguments Before the Supreme Court." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 27 Mar. 2003. Web.
20) Greenhouse, Linda. "Court Appears Ready to Reverse a Sodomy Law." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 26 Mar. 2003. Web.
21) Brinkley, Joel. "Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law Banning Sodomy."
NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 26 June 2003. Web.
22) Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law Banning Sodomy." NYTimes.com. The
New York Times, 26 June 2003. Web.
23) "Excerpts: Supreme Court's Opinion (Lawrence v. Texas)." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 27 June 2003. Web.
24) Greenhouse, Linda. "THE SUPREME COURT: HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS;
JUSTICES, 6-3, LEGALIZE GAY SEXUAL CONDUCT IN SWEEPING
REVERSAL OF COURT'S '86 RULING." NYTimes.com. The New York Times,
27 June 2003.Web.
25) Greenhouse, Linda. "In a Momentous Term, Justices Remake the Law, and the
Court." The New York Times. The New York Times, 30 June 2003. Web.
26) Rosen, Jeffrey. "How to Reignite the Culture Wars." The New York Times. The New
York Times, 06 Sept. 2003. Web.
27) Schwartz, John, and Adam Liptak. "U.S. Asks Justices to Reject California’s Ban on
Gay Marriage." NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 28 Feb. 2013. Web.
28) Liptak, Adam. "Ban on Gay Marriage Led Lawyers to Shift Role." NYTimes.com.
The New York Times, 18 Mar. 2013. Web.
29) Liptak, Adam. "Court Announces Early Release of Same-Sex Marriage Arguments."
NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 19 Mar. 2013. Web.
30) Liptak, Adam. "Q. and A.: A Decisive Moment on Gay Marriage." NYTimes.com.
The New York Times, 25 Mar. 2013. Web
31) Liptak, Adam. "Shadow of Roe v. Wade Looms Over Ruling on Gay Marriage." The
New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2013. Web.
32) Liptak, Adam. "Justices Say Time May Be Wrong for Gay Marriage Case." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 26 Mar. 2013. Web.
33) Liptak, Adam, and Peter Baker. "Justices Cast Doubt on Benefits Ban in U.S.
Marriage Law." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 Mar. 2013.
Web.
34) Liptak, Adam. "Who Wanted to Take the Case on Gay Marriage? Ask Scalia." The
New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Mar. 2013. Web.
35) Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Weighs Cases Redefining Legal Equality." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 22 June 2013. Web.
36) Banco, Erin. "As Rulings Are Announced, Cheers and Tears Among Waiting
Crowd." The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 June 2013. Web.
37) "Seeing a Step Toward Equality, or a Spark to Fight Gay Marriage." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 26 June 2013. Web.
38) "Guide to the Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 25 June 2013. Web.
39) "Guide to the Supreme Court Decision on the Defense of Marriage Act." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 25 June 2013. Web.
40) Bernard, Tara Siegel. "How the Court’s Ruling Will Affect Same-Sex Spouses." The
New York Times. The New York Times, 26 June 2013. Web.
58
AUTHOR’S BIO
Patrick is a graduate of the University of Maine, Orono, with a degree in Political
Science. And is currently attending the University of Maine School of Law. Patrick lives
in Glenburn, Maine, but he frequently travels throughout the state professionally guiding
rock climbing, mountaineering, and canoeing. He plans to graduate from Maine Law and
practice law someplace in New England.
59